Hi Eric, Thanks for your quick response and please check inline below with KT2.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 12:22 PM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Ketan > > > > As usual, your fast reply is always appreciated. > > > > See below for EV> (mainly acknowledging your reply) > > > > Regards > > > > -éric > > > > *From: *iesg <[email protected]> on behalf of Ketan Talaulikar < > [email protected]> > *Date: *Wednesday, 5 October 2022 at 08:21 > *To: *Eric Vyncke <[email protected]> > *Cc: *The IESG <[email protected]>, " > [email protected]" < > [email protected]>, "[email protected]" < > [email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" > <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: Éric Vyncke's Yes on > draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-09: (with COMMENT) > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > Thanks for your review and please check inline below for responses. > > > > The update discussed below will reflect in the next version of the > document. > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 11:20 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-09: Yes > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-09 > CC @evyncke > > Thank you for the work put into this document. It is short, clear, and > useful > (hence my YES). > > Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be > appreciated even if only for my own education). > > Special thanks to Acee Lindem for the shepherd's detailed write-up > including > the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status. > > I hope that this review helps to improve the document, > > Regards, > > -éric > > ## COMMENTS > > ### Section 3 > > Suggest to move section 3 (Local Interface IPv4 Address TLV) as a > subsection of > section 4.1 (OSPFv3 IPv4 Address-Family Specifics) as, at least for me, the > reader cannot understand the use of section 3 before reading section 4.1 > > > > KT> How about we add a forward reference to section 4.1 in section 3? The > idea behind the current organization was to specify the protocol encodings > up front and then their usage/procedures. > > > > EV> I understand the reasoning of the current document structure even if > not easy for the reader. Anyway, a forward reference would be a good step > forward. > KT2> Ack > > > > As I am not an OSPFv3 expert, the following question is possibly > irrelevant, > but can the IPv4 address be a link-local (i.e., 169.254/16)? > > > > KT> AFAIK such usage is not specified. Perhaps the assumption or > motivation being that they were mainly intended for hosts. That said, > technically their usage does seem possible to me. Both for OSPFv2 and for > OSPFv3. > > > > EV> Thanks. I guess that specifying that it must be a unicast address is > useless/implicit. > KT2> Yes. It is an interface address. > > > > ### Section 4.1 > > ``` > ... In most deployments of > OSPFv3 IPv4 AF, it is required that BFD is used to monitor and verify > IPv4 data plane connectivity between the routers on the link and, > hence, the BFD session is setup using IPv4 neighbor addresses. > ``` > > The text is a little unclear whether an IPv6 BFD session is also required. > > > > KT> Yes, it is for OSPv3 IPv6 AF instance adjacencies - that is base > OSPFv3 protocol interactions with BFD and covered in RFC5882. Here the > context is specifically on "In ... OSPFv3 IPv4 AF, ...". Note that there > would be separate OSPFv3 protocol instances for IPv4 and IPv6 with the > adjacency of each instance monitoring IPv4 and IPv6 BFD connectivity > respectively. > > > > EV> this was my **guess**, suggest to make it clearer with " ... the IPv4 BFD > session is setup ..." > KT2> Ack - will incorporate this suggestion. Thanks, Ketan > > > Thanks, > > Ketan > > > > > ## Notes > > This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use > the > [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into > individual GitHub issues. > > [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md > [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
